4.6 Article

De novo transcriptome assembly of the green alga Ankistrodesmus falcatus

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 16, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251668

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. National Science Foundation [DEB-1556645]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ankistrodesmus falcatus, a globally distributed freshwater chlorophyte, has been studied for biofuel production, aquatic toxins, and zooplankton research. Researchers created a reference transcriptome using NextGen sequencing, de novo assembly methods, and annotation tools, providing valuable genomic resources for various research fields.
Ankistrodesmus falcatus is a globally distributed freshwater chlorophyte that is a candidate for biofuel production, is used to study the effects of toxins on aquatic communities, and is used as food in zooplankton research. Each of these research fields is transitioning to genomic tools. We created a reference transcriptome for of A. falcatus using NextGen sequencing and de novo assembly methods including Trinity, Velvet-Oases, and EvidentialGene. The assembled transcriptome has a total of 17,997 contigs, an N50 value of 2,462, and a GC content of 64.8%. BUSCO analysis recovered 83.3% of total chlorophyte BUSCOs and 82.5% of the eukaryotic BUSCOs. A portion (7.9%) of these supposedly single-copy genes were found to have transcriptionally active, distinct duplicates. We annotated the assembly using the dammit annotation pipeline, resulting in putative functional annotation for 68.89% of the assembly. Using available rbcL sequences from 16 strains (10 species) of Ankistrodesmus, we constructed a neighbor-joining phylogeny to illustrate genetic distances of our A. falcatus strain to other members of the genus. This assembly will be valuable for researchers seeking to identify Ankistrodesmus sequences in metatranscriptomic and metagenomic field studies and in experiments where separating expression responses of zooplankton and their algal food sources through bioinformatics is important.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据